Gas prices are high and I've been hearing a lot of bitching, boycott scheming, etc.
Personally, I'm all for paying the true cost of gas at the pump. Until American consumers start paying closer to the true cost we are going to continue to put off seriously seeking alternatives.
Showing posts with label sustainable. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sustainable. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, October 3, 2011
Food And Climate Change
This is an EXCELLENT article from Grain!!
Food and climate change: The forgotten link
GRAIN | 28 September 2011 | Against the grain
Food is a key driver of climate change. How our food gets produced and how it ends up on our tables accounts for around half of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. Chemical fertilizers, heavy machinery and other petroleum-dependant farm technologies contribute significantly. The impact of the food industry as a whole is even greater: destroying forests and savannahs to produce animal feed and generating climate-damaging waste through excess packaging, processing, refrigeration and the transport of food over long distances, despite leaving millions of people hungry.
A new food system could be a key driver of solutions to climate change. People around the world are involved in struggles to defend or create ways of growing and sharing food that are healthier for their communities and for the planet. If measures are taken to restructure agriculture and the larger food system around food sovereignty, small scale farming, agro-ecology and local markets, we could cut global emissions in half within a few decades. We don’t need carbon markets or techno-fixes. We need the right policies and programmes to dump the current industrial food system and create a sustainable, equitable and truly productive one instead.
Food and climate: piecing the puzzle together
Most studies put the contribution of agricultural emissions – the emissions produced on the farm - at somewhere between 11 and 15% of all global emissions.[1] What often goes unsaid, however, is that most of these emissions are generated by industrial farming practices that rely on chemical (nitrogen) fertilizers, heavy machinery run on petrol, and highly concentrated industrial livestock operations that pump out methane waste.
The figures for agriculture's contribution also often do not account for its role in land use changes and deforestation, which are responsible for nearly a fifth of global GHG emissions.[2] Worldwide, agriculture is pushing into savannas, wetlands, cerrados and forests, plowing under huge amounts of land. The expansion of the agricultural frontier is the dominant contributor to deforestation, accounting for between 70-90% of global deforestation.[3] This means that some 15-18% of global GHG emissions are produced by land-use change and deforestation caused by agriculture. And here too, the global food system and its industrial model of agriculture are the chief culprits. The main driver of this deforestation is the expansion of industrial plantations for the production of commodities such as soy, sugarcane, oilpalm, maize and rapeseed.
Since 1990, the area planted with these five commodity crops grew by 38%[4] though land planted to staple foods like rice and wheat declined.
Emissions from agriculture account for only a portion of the food system's overall contribution to climate change. Equally important is what happens from between the time food leaves the farm until it reaches our tables.
Food is the world's biggest economic sector, involving more transactions and employing more people by far than any other. These days food is prepared and distributed using enormous amounts of processing, packaging and transportation, all of which generateGHG emissions, although data on such emissions are hard to find. Studies looking at the EU conclude that about one quarter of overall transportation involves commercial food transport[5] The scattered figures on transportation available for other countries, such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, indicate that the percentage is even higher in non-industrialised countries, where food production and delivery accounts for 60-80% of the total energy - human plus animal plus fuel – used.”[6] With transportation accounting for 25% of global GHG emissions, we can use the EU data to conservatively estimate that the transport of food accounts for at least 6% of global GHG emissions. When it comes to processing and packaging, again the available data is mainly from the EU, where studies show that the processing and packaging of food accounts for between 10-11% of GHG emissions,[7] while refrigeration of food accounts for 3-4% [8]of total emissions and food retail another 2%.[9]
Playing it conservative with the EU figures and extrapolating from the scarce figures that exist for other countries, we can estimate that at least 5-6% of emissions are due to food transport, 8-10% due to food processing and packaging, around 1-2% due to refrigeration, and 1-2% due to retail. This gives us a total contribution of 15-20% of global emissions from these activities.
Not all of what the food system produces gets consumed. The industrial food system discards up to half of all the food that it produces, in its journey from farms to traders, to food processors, to stores and supermarkets. This is enough to feed the world’s hungry six times over.[10] A lot of this waste rots away on garbage heaps and landfills, producing substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Different studies indicate that somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5 of global GHG emissions come from waste, and that over 90% of them come from materials originating in agriculture and their processing.[11] This means that the decomposition of organic waste originating in food and agriculture is responsible for 3-4% of global GHG emissions.
Add the above figures together, factor up the evidence, and there is a compelling case that the current global food system, propelled by an increasingly powerful transnational food industry, is responsible for around half of all human produced greenhouse gas emissions: anywhere between a low of 44% to a high of 57%. The graph below illustrates the conclusion:
Turning the food system upside down
Clearly, we will not get out of the climate crisis if the global food system is not urgently and dramatically transformed. The place to start is with the soil.
Food begins and ends with soil. It grows out of the soil and eventually goes back in it to enable more food to be produced. This is the very cycle of life. But in recent years humans have ignored this vital cycle. We have been taking from the soil without giving back.The industrialisation of agriculture, starting in Europe and North America, replicating later through the Green Revolution in other parts of the world, was based on the assumption that soil fertility could be maintained and increased through the use of chemical fertilisers. Little attention was paid to the importance of organic matter in the soil.
A wide range of scientific reports indicate that cultivated soils have lost from 30 to 75% of their organic matter during the 20th century, while soils under pastures and prairies have typically lost up to 50%. There is no doubt that these losses have provoked a serious deterioration of soil fertility and productivity, as well as contributing to worsening droughts and floods.
Taking as a basis some of the most conservative figures provided by scientific literature, the global accumulated loss of soil organic matter over the last century may be estimated to be between 150 to 200 billion tonnes.[12] Not all this organic matter ended up in the air as CO2, as significant amounts have been washed away by erosion and have been deposited in the bottom of rivers and oceans. However, it can be estimated that at least 200 to 300 billion tonnes of CO2 have been released to the atmosphere due to the global destruction of soil organic matter. In other words, 25 to 40% of the current excess of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the destruction of soils and its organic matter.
There is some good news hidden in these devastating figures. The CO2 that we have sent into the atmosphere by depleting the world's soils can be put back into the soil. All that is required is a change of agricultural practices. We have to move away from practices that destroy organic matter to practices that build-up the organic matter in the soil.
We know this can be done. Farmers around the world have been engaging in these very practices for generations. GRAIN research has shown that, if the right policies and incentives were in place worldwide, soil organic matter contents could be restored to pre-industrial agriculture levels within a period of 50 years – which is roughly the same time frame that industrial agriculture took to reduce it.[13] The continuing use of these practices would allow the offset of between 24-30% of current global annual GHG emissions[14].
The new scenario would require a radical change in approach from the current industrial agriculture model. It would focus on the use of techniques such as diversified cropping systems, better integration between crop and animal production, increased incorporation of trees and wild vegetation, and so on. Such an increase in diversity would, in turn, increase the production potential, and the incorporation of organic matter would progressively improve soil fertility, creating virtuous cycles of higher productivity and higher availability of organic matter. The capacity of soil to hold water would increase, which would mean that excessive rainfall would lead to fewer, less intense floods and droughts. Soil erosion would become less of a problem. Soil acidity and alkalinity would fall progressively, reducing or eliminating the toxicity that has become a major problem in tropical and arid soils. Additionally, increased soil biological activity would protect plants against pests and diseases. Each one of these effects implies higher productivity and hence more organic matter available to soils, thus making possible, as the years go by, higher targets for soil organic matter incorporation. More food would be produced in the process.
To be able to do it, we would need to build on the skills and experience of the world's small farmers, rather than undermining them and forcing them off their lands, as is now the case.
A global shift towards an agriculture that builds up organic matter in the soil would also put us on a path to removing some of the other major sources of GHGs from the food system. There are three other mutually reinforcing shifts that need to take place in the food system to address its overall contribution to climate change: The first is a shift to local markets and shorter circuits of food distribution, which will cut back on transportation and the need for packaging, processing and refrigeration. The second is a reintegration of crop and animal production, to cut back on transportation, the use of chemical fertilisers and the production of methane and nitrous oxide emissions generated by intensive meat and dairy operations. And the third is the stopping of land clearing and deforestation, which will require genuine agrarian reform and a reversal of the expansion of monoculture plantations for the production of agrofuels and animal feed.
If the world gets serious about putting these four shifts into action, it is quite possible that we can cut global GHG emissions in half within a few decades and, in the process, go a long way towards resolving the other crises affecting the planet, such as poverty and hunger. There are no technical hurdles standing in the way-- the knowledge and skills are in the hands of the world's farmers and we can build on that. The only hurdles are political, and this is where we need to focus our efforts.
Notes
[1] The IPCC says 10-12%, the OECD says 14% and the WRI says 14.9%. See:
- IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Chapter 8: Agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/ms4mzb
- Wilfrid Legg and Hsin Huang. OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Climate change and agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/5u2hf8k
- WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe
[2] See: WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe And: IPCC. 2004. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: 3.4.2 Consequences of Land-use Change. http://tinyurl.com/6lduxqy
[3] See FAO Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products – Forty ninth Session – Bakubung, South Africa, 10 June 2008; and M. Kanninen et al., "Do trees grow on Money? Forest Perspective 4, CIFOR, Jakarta, 2007.
[4] See: GRAIN, 'Global Agribusiness: two decades of plunder', in: Seedling, July 2010.
[5] see: Eurostat. From farm to fork - a statistical journey along the EU's food chain - Issue number 27/2011 http://tinyurl.com/656tchm and http://tinyurl.com/6k9jsc3
[6] FAO. Stephen Karekezi and Michael Lazarus, Future energy requirements for Africa’s agriculture. Chapters 2, 3, and 4. http://www.fao.org/docrep/V9766E/v9766e00.htm#Contents
[7] For EU, see: Viktoria BOLLA, Velina PENDOLOVSKA, Driving forces behind EU-27 greenhouse gas emissions over the decade 1999-2008. Statistics in focus 10/2011. http://tinyurl.com/6bhesog
[8] Tara Garnett and Tim Jackson, Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of SurreyFrost Bitten: an exploration of refrigeration dependence in the UK food chain and its implications for climate policywww.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/publications/PDFs/Frostbitten%20paper.pdf
[9] S.A. Tassou, Y. Ge, A. Hadawey, D. Marriott. Energy consumption and conservation in food retailing. Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 147-156 AND Kumar Venkat. CleanMetrics Corp. The Climate Change Impact of US Food Waste
CleanMetrics Technical Brief. www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/ClimateChangeImpactofUSFoodWaste.pdf and Ioannis Bakas, Copenhagen Resource Institute (CRI). Food and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. www.scp-knowledge.eu/sites/default/files/KU_Food_GHG_emissions.pdf
[10] Tristram Stuart, “Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal”, Penguin, 2009, http://tinyurl.com/m3dxc9
[11] Jean Bogner, et. al. Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste: conclusions and strategies from the IPCC. Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation) http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/26/1/11.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc
[12] Figures used for calculations were:
a) an average loss of 4,5- 6 kg of SOM/m2 of arable land and 2-3 kg of SOM/m2 of agricultural land under prairies and not cultivated
b) an average soil depth of 30 cm, with an average soil density of 1 gr/cm3
c) 5000 million ha of agricultural land worldwide; 1800 million ha of arable land, as stated by FAO
d) a ratio of 1,46 kg of CO2 for each kg of destroyed SOM
[13] See: 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009. http://www.grain.org/e/735
[14] The conclusion is based on the assumption that organic matter incorporation would reach an annual global average rate of 3.5 to 5 tonnes per hectare of agricultural land. For more detailed calculations, see: GRAIN, 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009, table 2.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Food and climate change: The forgotten link
GRAIN | 28 September 2011 | Against the grain
Food is a key driver of climate change. How our food gets produced and how it ends up on our tables accounts for around half of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. Chemical fertilizers, heavy machinery and other petroleum-dependant farm technologies contribute significantly. The impact of the food industry as a whole is even greater: destroying forests and savannahs to produce animal feed and generating climate-damaging waste through excess packaging, processing, refrigeration and the transport of food over long distances, despite leaving millions of people hungry.
A new food system could be a key driver of solutions to climate change. People around the world are involved in struggles to defend or create ways of growing and sharing food that are healthier for their communities and for the planet. If measures are taken to restructure agriculture and the larger food system around food sovereignty, small scale farming, agro-ecology and local markets, we could cut global emissions in half within a few decades. We don’t need carbon markets or techno-fixes. We need the right policies and programmes to dump the current industrial food system and create a sustainable, equitable and truly productive one instead.
Food and climate: piecing the puzzle together
Most studies put the contribution of agricultural emissions – the emissions produced on the farm - at somewhere between 11 and 15% of all global emissions.[1] What often goes unsaid, however, is that most of these emissions are generated by industrial farming practices that rely on chemical (nitrogen) fertilizers, heavy machinery run on petrol, and highly concentrated industrial livestock operations that pump out methane waste.
The figures for agriculture's contribution also often do not account for its role in land use changes and deforestation, which are responsible for nearly a fifth of global GHG emissions.[2] Worldwide, agriculture is pushing into savannas, wetlands, cerrados and forests, plowing under huge amounts of land. The expansion of the agricultural frontier is the dominant contributor to deforestation, accounting for between 70-90% of global deforestation.[3] This means that some 15-18% of global GHG emissions are produced by land-use change and deforestation caused by agriculture. And here too, the global food system and its industrial model of agriculture are the chief culprits. The main driver of this deforestation is the expansion of industrial plantations for the production of commodities such as soy, sugarcane, oilpalm, maize and rapeseed.
Since 1990, the area planted with these five commodity crops grew by 38%[4] though land planted to staple foods like rice and wheat declined.
Emissions from agriculture account for only a portion of the food system's overall contribution to climate change. Equally important is what happens from between the time food leaves the farm until it reaches our tables.
Food is the world's biggest economic sector, involving more transactions and employing more people by far than any other. These days food is prepared and distributed using enormous amounts of processing, packaging and transportation, all of which generateGHG emissions, although data on such emissions are hard to find. Studies looking at the EU conclude that about one quarter of overall transportation involves commercial food transport[5] The scattered figures on transportation available for other countries, such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, indicate that the percentage is even higher in non-industrialised countries, where food production and delivery accounts for 60-80% of the total energy - human plus animal plus fuel – used.”[6] With transportation accounting for 25% of global GHG emissions, we can use the EU data to conservatively estimate that the transport of food accounts for at least 6% of global GHG emissions. When it comes to processing and packaging, again the available data is mainly from the EU, where studies show that the processing and packaging of food accounts for between 10-11% of GHG emissions,[7] while refrigeration of food accounts for 3-4% [8]of total emissions and food retail another 2%.[9]
Playing it conservative with the EU figures and extrapolating from the scarce figures that exist for other countries, we can estimate that at least 5-6% of emissions are due to food transport, 8-10% due to food processing and packaging, around 1-2% due to refrigeration, and 1-2% due to retail. This gives us a total contribution of 15-20% of global emissions from these activities.
Not all of what the food system produces gets consumed. The industrial food system discards up to half of all the food that it produces, in its journey from farms to traders, to food processors, to stores and supermarkets. This is enough to feed the world’s hungry six times over.[10] A lot of this waste rots away on garbage heaps and landfills, producing substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Different studies indicate that somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5 of global GHG emissions come from waste, and that over 90% of them come from materials originating in agriculture and their processing.[11] This means that the decomposition of organic waste originating in food and agriculture is responsible for 3-4% of global GHG emissions.
Add the above figures together, factor up the evidence, and there is a compelling case that the current global food system, propelled by an increasingly powerful transnational food industry, is responsible for around half of all human produced greenhouse gas emissions: anywhere between a low of 44% to a high of 57%. The graph below illustrates the conclusion:
Turning the food system upside down
Clearly, we will not get out of the climate crisis if the global food system is not urgently and dramatically transformed. The place to start is with the soil.
Food begins and ends with soil. It grows out of the soil and eventually goes back in it to enable more food to be produced. This is the very cycle of life. But in recent years humans have ignored this vital cycle. We have been taking from the soil without giving back.The industrialisation of agriculture, starting in Europe and North America, replicating later through the Green Revolution in other parts of the world, was based on the assumption that soil fertility could be maintained and increased through the use of chemical fertilisers. Little attention was paid to the importance of organic matter in the soil.
A wide range of scientific reports indicate that cultivated soils have lost from 30 to 75% of their organic matter during the 20th century, while soils under pastures and prairies have typically lost up to 50%. There is no doubt that these losses have provoked a serious deterioration of soil fertility and productivity, as well as contributing to worsening droughts and floods.
Taking as a basis some of the most conservative figures provided by scientific literature, the global accumulated loss of soil organic matter over the last century may be estimated to be between 150 to 200 billion tonnes.[12] Not all this organic matter ended up in the air as CO2, as significant amounts have been washed away by erosion and have been deposited in the bottom of rivers and oceans. However, it can be estimated that at least 200 to 300 billion tonnes of CO2 have been released to the atmosphere due to the global destruction of soil organic matter. In other words, 25 to 40% of the current excess of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the destruction of soils and its organic matter.
There is some good news hidden in these devastating figures. The CO2 that we have sent into the atmosphere by depleting the world's soils can be put back into the soil. All that is required is a change of agricultural practices. We have to move away from practices that destroy organic matter to practices that build-up the organic matter in the soil.
We know this can be done. Farmers around the world have been engaging in these very practices for generations. GRAIN research has shown that, if the right policies and incentives were in place worldwide, soil organic matter contents could be restored to pre-industrial agriculture levels within a period of 50 years – which is roughly the same time frame that industrial agriculture took to reduce it.[13] The continuing use of these practices would allow the offset of between 24-30% of current global annual GHG emissions[14].
The new scenario would require a radical change in approach from the current industrial agriculture model. It would focus on the use of techniques such as diversified cropping systems, better integration between crop and animal production, increased incorporation of trees and wild vegetation, and so on. Such an increase in diversity would, in turn, increase the production potential, and the incorporation of organic matter would progressively improve soil fertility, creating virtuous cycles of higher productivity and higher availability of organic matter. The capacity of soil to hold water would increase, which would mean that excessive rainfall would lead to fewer, less intense floods and droughts. Soil erosion would become less of a problem. Soil acidity and alkalinity would fall progressively, reducing or eliminating the toxicity that has become a major problem in tropical and arid soils. Additionally, increased soil biological activity would protect plants against pests and diseases. Each one of these effects implies higher productivity and hence more organic matter available to soils, thus making possible, as the years go by, higher targets for soil organic matter incorporation. More food would be produced in the process.
To be able to do it, we would need to build on the skills and experience of the world's small farmers, rather than undermining them and forcing them off their lands, as is now the case.
A global shift towards an agriculture that builds up organic matter in the soil would also put us on a path to removing some of the other major sources of GHGs from the food system. There are three other mutually reinforcing shifts that need to take place in the food system to address its overall contribution to climate change: The first is a shift to local markets and shorter circuits of food distribution, which will cut back on transportation and the need for packaging, processing and refrigeration. The second is a reintegration of crop and animal production, to cut back on transportation, the use of chemical fertilisers and the production of methane and nitrous oxide emissions generated by intensive meat and dairy operations. And the third is the stopping of land clearing and deforestation, which will require genuine agrarian reform and a reversal of the expansion of monoculture plantations for the production of agrofuels and animal feed.
If the world gets serious about putting these four shifts into action, it is quite possible that we can cut global GHG emissions in half within a few decades and, in the process, go a long way towards resolving the other crises affecting the planet, such as poverty and hunger. There are no technical hurdles standing in the way-- the knowledge and skills are in the hands of the world's farmers and we can build on that. The only hurdles are political, and this is where we need to focus our efforts.
Notes
[1] The IPCC says 10-12%, the OECD says 14% and the WRI says 14.9%. See:
- IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Chapter 8: Agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/ms4mzb
- Wilfrid Legg and Hsin Huang. OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Climate change and agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/5u2hf8k
- WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe
[2] See: WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe And: IPCC. 2004. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: 3.4.2 Consequences of Land-use Change. http://tinyurl.com/6lduxqy
[3] See FAO Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products – Forty ninth Session – Bakubung, South Africa, 10 June 2008; and M. Kanninen et al., "Do trees grow on Money? Forest Perspective 4, CIFOR, Jakarta, 2007.
[4] See: GRAIN, 'Global Agribusiness: two decades of plunder', in: Seedling, July 2010.
[5] see: Eurostat. From farm to fork - a statistical journey along the EU's food chain - Issue number 27/2011 http://tinyurl.com/656tchm and http://tinyurl.com/6k9jsc3
[6] FAO. Stephen Karekezi and Michael Lazarus, Future energy requirements for Africa’s agriculture. Chapters 2, 3, and 4. http://www.fao.org/docrep/V9766E/v9766e00.htm#Contents
[7] For EU, see: Viktoria BOLLA, Velina PENDOLOVSKA, Driving forces behind EU-27 greenhouse gas emissions over the decade 1999-2008. Statistics in focus 10/2011. http://tinyurl.com/6bhesog
[8] Tara Garnett and Tim Jackson, Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of SurreyFrost Bitten: an exploration of refrigeration dependence in the UK food chain and its implications for climate policywww.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/publications/PDFs/Frostbitten%20paper.pdf
[9] S.A. Tassou, Y. Ge, A. Hadawey, D. Marriott. Energy consumption and conservation in food retailing. Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 147-156 AND Kumar Venkat. CleanMetrics Corp. The Climate Change Impact of US Food Waste
CleanMetrics Technical Brief. www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/ClimateChangeImpactofUSFoodWaste.pdf and Ioannis Bakas, Copenhagen Resource Institute (CRI). Food and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. www.scp-knowledge.eu/sites/default/files/KU_Food_GHG_emissions.pdf
[10] Tristram Stuart, “Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal”, Penguin, 2009, http://tinyurl.com/m3dxc9
[11] Jean Bogner, et. al. Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste: conclusions and strategies from the IPCC. Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation) http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/26/1/11.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc
[12] Figures used for calculations were:
a) an average loss of 4,5- 6 kg of SOM/m2 of arable land and 2-3 kg of SOM/m2 of agricultural land under prairies and not cultivated
b) an average soil depth of 30 cm, with an average soil density of 1 gr/cm3
c) 5000 million ha of agricultural land worldwide; 1800 million ha of arable land, as stated by FAO
d) a ratio of 1,46 kg of CO2 for each kg of destroyed SOM
[13] See: 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009. http://www.grain.org/e/735
[14] The conclusion is based on the assumption that organic matter incorporation would reach an annual global average rate of 3.5 to 5 tonnes per hectare of agricultural land. For more detailed calculations, see: GRAIN, 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009, table 2.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Friday, September 9, 2011
What if Solar Energy Received The Same Subsidies as Fossil Fuels?
I copied this directly from Roger Ebert's Journal on the Sun Times website. All credit goes to him and his sources, but I could not resist sharing this.
It's just that good:
It's just that good:
What if solar energy received the same subsidies as fossil fuels?
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
A Bright Future for the Heartland
All too often I find myself posting about the negative side of an issue, so here's a positive spin:
A Bright Future for the Heartland
Powering the Midwest Economy with Clean Energy
From the manufacturing centers and corn and soybean fields to the major finance hubs and leading research universities, Midwest states have long served as an economic engine for the United States.
Yet the region is still struggling to fully recover from a recession that has made it difficult for families to pay bills and for businesses to prosper and sustain job growth.
The region’s unsustainable energy system exacerbates these economic pressures.
The Midwest power system is dominated by coal—largely imported from outside the region—which poses serious risks to public health and the environment, and leaves consumers vulnerable to volatile energy prices.
With abundant resources, revitalization is possible.
The good news is that practical and affordable ways are available to help revitalize the Midwest economy and ensure a clean, safe, and reliable power supply.
The Midwest is home to some of the best renewable energy resources in the world.
The region is also endowed with a strong industrial base and leading research universities, where a tradition of hard work and innovation has long made the Midwest an economic engine for the entire nation.
Few areas of the world have this ideal mix of resources, industrial capacity, and knowledge base.
These advantages give the Midwest the tools to turn the challenges of a stalled economy and an unsustainable, polluting energy system into an opportunity for economic prosperity, job growth, and a healthy environment.
UCS’s new report, A Bright Future for the Heartland, shows how we can get there.
Clean energy: a wise investment for a bright future.
Energy efficiency technologies and renewable electricity resources, such as wind, bioenergy, and solar energy, offer a cost-effective and responsible path away from polluting fossil fuels toward an innovation-based twenty-first-century economy.
Investing in these solutions would deliver new jobs and other economic development benefits, save consumers money, diversify the region's energy mix, and cut heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming.
Boosting investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency would also help keep the Midwest competitive in the growing global clean energy industry.
A roadmap for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
In A Bright Future for the Heartland, UCS based its analysis on the renewable energy and energy efficiency goals of the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA)—a collaboration of 10 states working on key public policy issues.
These goals call for producing 30 percent of the Midwest's electricity supply from renewable energy by 2030, and for investing in energy efficiency technologies to reduce growth in power consumption at least 2 percent annually by 2015 and thereafter.
Two key solutions: renewable electricity and energy efficiency standards.
In 2009 an MGA advisory group released the Midwestern Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Roadmap (or Energy Roadmap), a set of policy recommendations for transitioning to a clean energy economy (MGA 2009).
Our analysis focuses on two of the highest-priority recommendations in the Energy Roadmap, which we model as a renewable electricity standard (RES) and an energy efficiency resource standard (EERS). Our report shares what would happen if the entire Midwest region enacted the standards.
An RES is a flexible, market-based policy that requires electricity providers to gradually increase the amount of renewable energy used to produce the power they supply.
An EERS similarly requires utilities to meet specific annual targets for reducing the use of electricity.
While the region will need other policies to overcome specific market barriers to clean energy, the RES and EERS have proven to be effective and popular tools for advancing renewable energy and energy efficiency, and can play a key role in ensuring that the Midwest meets the targets in the Energy Roadmap.
A bright future, together.
Midwest states can benefit from enacting these policies individually, but will benefit even more by acting together.
Many Midwest states have already taken important steps to promote clean energy, and there must be no retrenchment in those efforts.
Instead, each state can go further to strengthen or enact policies that at least match the Energy Roadmap’s clean energy targets, and to support local, regional, federal, and international efforts to promote renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cuts in carbon emissions.
With each state doing its part to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency, the region will reap many vital benefits today while building a clean and sustainable energy economy for future generations.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE -- WITH SOME GREAT SIDEBARS -- HERE]
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Politics and Climate Change
I wrote a while back in a post titled, It's Time To Shut Up And Do Something, that I believe climate change is the biggest issue we may ever face as a species.
I didn't stop with my blog post. I appealed to my own representatives on the matter. Here is what Senator Maria Cantwell had to say.
The language illustrates that, while we all agree climate change is a problem, we're not willing to make many concessions.
As always, we are continuing to live off the backs of future generations because we are not willing to sacrifice.
We suck.
[From Maria Cantwell : ]
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about climate change. I appreciate hearing from you on what I believe is the preeminent environmental challenge facing our generation and sincerely regret the delayed response.
As you know, scientists have determined that the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, will cause the Earth's climate to warm, potentially leading to greater occurrences of droughts, floods, and other catastrophic natural disasters. In Washington, climate change is expected to alter the region's historic water cycle, threatening drinking water supplies, wildlife and salmon habitat, and the availability of emissions free hydropower. In fact, researchers project that the annual average temperature in the Pacific Northwest will rise about 2 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2020s and April 1 snowpack could decrease as much as 40% in Washington State by the 2040s. Considering these potentially serious environmental and economic consequences, I believe that the United States must urgently address this matter, in partnership with the rest of the world.
One of my top priorities as a U.S. Senator has been to fight for legislation to promote the production of renewable energy, incentivize energy efficiency, develop clean technology industries, and protect our environment. While these energy measures provide critical tools necessary to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we also need federal legislation that establishes scientifically based emissions caps. Unfortunately, I have concerns about the cap-and-trade climate measures that have dominated Congressional debate to date because they unfairly penalize the Pacific Northwest's decades-old reliance on emissions free hydropower. In addition, they do not recognize that our state's hydropower system is mature and won't be able to add much more capacity in coming years, thus any future electricity generation will likely be relatively more polluting. Some legislative proposals would also effectively penalize Washington State for its years of aggressive energy efficiency measures, making any additional savings more costly for Washington State relative to other parts of the country. Finally, I have strong concerns that some cap-and-trade proposals could provide windfalls to historic polluters, or allow excessive speculation and manipulation of emission allocation trading markets. For decades, Washingtonians have been on the cutting edge of clean energy solutions and energy efficiency, setting an example for the rest of the nation. I have been committed to working with my colleagues to craft legislation that will cut our greenhouse gas emissions without punishing low carbon intensity states.
With that in mind, on December 11, 2009, I authored and introduced bipartisan legislation with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine that will put a predictable price on carbon, reduce our nation's dangerous over-dependence on fossil fuels, and mitigate the threat of global warming. This bill will accelerate our nation's urgently needed transition to a clean energy economy, helping ensure America's leadership in the largest market opportunity of the 21st century while protecting the vast majority of Americans from higher energy prices.
The Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act (S. 2877) gradually limits the amount of fossil fuels entering the U.S. economy by requiring fossil fuel producers and importers to bid at an auction for permits to place their product into commerce. Out of the money raised at the auction, three-fourths goes directly back to every American, and one-fourth goes toward clean energy investment. Eventually, as the amount of carbon allowed into the market declines over time and spending increases in other greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts, the CLEAR Act will reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, and by over 80 percent before 2050.
Many Americans are rightfully concerned about rising energy bills during America's transition to a clean energy economy. That's why the CLEAR Act is rooted in protecting consumers, with most of the monthly carbon auctions going straight to your pockets. This monthly dividend, made out to each American on an equal per capita basis, ensures all but the wealthiest ten percent of Washingtonians (who use the most energy) do not lose money but instead come out ahead. A typical family of four would receive tax-free monthly checks averaging $1,100 per year, or up to $21,000 between 2012 and 2030.
The remaining quarter of auction revenues are directed to a dedicated trust, the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust (CERT) Fund, to accelerate the nation's urgently needed transition to a cleaner 21st century energy system and meet other climate change-related priorities. These priorities include clean energy R&D, low income weatherization assistance, reductions of greenhouse gases in the forestry and agricultural sectors, and needs-based, regionally-targeted assistance for communities and workers transitioning to a clean energy economy.
The CLEAR Act invests in America's future by positioning the United States as a global leader in clean energy expansion, creating jobs and recharging our economy at home. With the right policies, millions of green jobs will be created, strengthening our economy, international competitiveness and nation's infrastructure. The longer we wait to tackle energy independence and carbon pollution, the larger the economic and social costs of adapting to climate change will grow. Our time of renewal is now, and I plan to continue pushing the most effective policies to create a cleaner, more diverse and secure 21st century energy system.
I didn't stop with my blog post. I appealed to my own representatives on the matter. Here is what Senator Maria Cantwell had to say.
The language illustrates that, while we all agree climate change is a problem, we're not willing to make many concessions.
As always, we are continuing to live off the backs of future generations because we are not willing to sacrifice.
We suck.
[From Maria Cantwell : ]
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about climate change. I appreciate hearing from you on what I believe is the preeminent environmental challenge facing our generation and sincerely regret the delayed response.
As you know, scientists have determined that the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, will cause the Earth's climate to warm, potentially leading to greater occurrences of droughts, floods, and other catastrophic natural disasters. In Washington, climate change is expected to alter the region's historic water cycle, threatening drinking water supplies, wildlife and salmon habitat, and the availability of emissions free hydropower. In fact, researchers project that the annual average temperature in the Pacific Northwest will rise about 2 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2020s and April 1 snowpack could decrease as much as 40% in Washington State by the 2040s. Considering these potentially serious environmental and economic consequences, I believe that the United States must urgently address this matter, in partnership with the rest of the world.
One of my top priorities as a U.S. Senator has been to fight for legislation to promote the production of renewable energy, incentivize energy efficiency, develop clean technology industries, and protect our environment. While these energy measures provide critical tools necessary to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we also need federal legislation that establishes scientifically based emissions caps. Unfortunately, I have concerns about the cap-and-trade climate measures that have dominated Congressional debate to date because they unfairly penalize the Pacific Northwest's decades-old reliance on emissions free hydropower. In addition, they do not recognize that our state's hydropower system is mature and won't be able to add much more capacity in coming years, thus any future electricity generation will likely be relatively more polluting. Some legislative proposals would also effectively penalize Washington State for its years of aggressive energy efficiency measures, making any additional savings more costly for Washington State relative to other parts of the country. Finally, I have strong concerns that some cap-and-trade proposals could provide windfalls to historic polluters, or allow excessive speculation and manipulation of emission allocation trading markets. For decades, Washingtonians have been on the cutting edge of clean energy solutions and energy efficiency, setting an example for the rest of the nation. I have been committed to working with my colleagues to craft legislation that will cut our greenhouse gas emissions without punishing low carbon intensity states.
With that in mind, on December 11, 2009, I authored and introduced bipartisan legislation with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine that will put a predictable price on carbon, reduce our nation's dangerous over-dependence on fossil fuels, and mitigate the threat of global warming. This bill will accelerate our nation's urgently needed transition to a clean energy economy, helping ensure America's leadership in the largest market opportunity of the 21st century while protecting the vast majority of Americans from higher energy prices.
The Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act (S. 2877) gradually limits the amount of fossil fuels entering the U.S. economy by requiring fossil fuel producers and importers to bid at an auction for permits to place their product into commerce. Out of the money raised at the auction, three-fourths goes directly back to every American, and one-fourth goes toward clean energy investment. Eventually, as the amount of carbon allowed into the market declines over time and spending increases in other greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts, the CLEAR Act will reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, and by over 80 percent before 2050.
Many Americans are rightfully concerned about rising energy bills during America's transition to a clean energy economy. That's why the CLEAR Act is rooted in protecting consumers, with most of the monthly carbon auctions going straight to your pockets. This monthly dividend, made out to each American on an equal per capita basis, ensures all but the wealthiest ten percent of Washingtonians (who use the most energy) do not lose money but instead come out ahead. A typical family of four would receive tax-free monthly checks averaging $1,100 per year, or up to $21,000 between 2012 and 2030.
The remaining quarter of auction revenues are directed to a dedicated trust, the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust (CERT) Fund, to accelerate the nation's urgently needed transition to a cleaner 21st century energy system and meet other climate change-related priorities. These priorities include clean energy R&D, low income weatherization assistance, reductions of greenhouse gases in the forestry and agricultural sectors, and needs-based, regionally-targeted assistance for communities and workers transitioning to a clean energy economy.
The CLEAR Act invests in America's future by positioning the United States as a global leader in clean energy expansion, creating jobs and recharging our economy at home. With the right policies, millions of green jobs will be created, strengthening our economy, international competitiveness and nation's infrastructure. The longer we wait to tackle energy independence and carbon pollution, the larger the economic and social costs of adapting to climate change will grow. Our time of renewal is now, and I plan to continue pushing the most effective policies to create a cleaner, more diverse and secure 21st century energy system.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Food Safety In The 21st Century
This article make a great argument for food safety. It is obviously written by someone in government and not agriculture because it focuses on government agencies, seems to blindly accept the factory farming practices that make food-bourne issues huge problems, and no where suggests that how we manufacture food be changed.
In the last paragraph, Dr. Blumenthal writes, "Greater attention to reducing food-related infections would save lives and contribute to reducing health care costs as well. The report underscores that today's world of agricultural practices in a global food supply chain require a modern system of food safety inspection."
I contend that we can reduce food-related infections by moving from industrial food manufacturing where these pathogens thrive and spread, to a more diverse, small-scale, locally-focused agricultural system. Such systems are better for the environment, better for the soil, have the potential to produce better food, would create more jobs in real farming, has reduced incidents of food-borne pathogens, and affects fewer people when there is an issue.
Of course, there are no lobbyists in Washington for real agriculture.
Here's the article:
Food Safety In The 21st Century
Susan Blumenthal, M.D.Public Health Editor at HuffPost and Former U.S. Assistant Surgeon General
Written in Collaboration with Alison Gocke
It sounds like a story right out of science fiction: A microscopic killer that shuts down the food supply, cripples a nation's exports, and leaves scores of people dead and thousands more ill. Such an event would seem unthinkable in the modern world of advanced agriculture and medical practice. But it did unfortunately occur several months ago as a result of an outbreak in Germany caused by a deadly, rare strain of E. coli bacteria that sickened more than 4,000 people and killed more than 50.
The strain, whose genome was just recently sequenced by scientists at the University of Maryland, is particularly virulent, carrying a combination of both Shiga toxin (which causes severe gastrointestinal illness like bloody vomiting, diarrhea, and sometimes, kidney failure) and a unique ability to adhere to the intestinal wall. The bacteria -- part of the serotype 0104:H4 -- is thus one of the most rare, deadly E. coli lines in existence. [1]
Over the past five years, from the E. coli scare found in California spinach to the recent outbreak of salmonella in ground turkey, serious and sometimes fatal illnesses resulting from contaminated food have occurred more frequently than expected. Since 2006, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued 39 warnings of multi-state foodborne illness occurrences. [2]
It is estimated that 48 million people are infected by foodborne diseases in the United States each year [3], resulting in $152 billion in medical costs annually. [4] And these outbreaks show no sign of abating; the incidence of salmonella infections alone has increased 20 percent since 1997. [5] With 170 countries exporting food to the U.S., and more than 70,000 food safety violations on food that is imported into America reported from 1998 to 2004 alone, the E. coli outbreak in Germany -- with additional cases reported in France and the U.S. -- shines a spotlight on why the issue of food safety is an international concern. [6]
According to the World Bank, more than two-thirds of countries globally are net importers (i.e., imports exceed exports) of food. [7] The devastating European E. coli outbreak that began in Germany in May illustrates the interconnectedness of the global food supply. From the beginning, the E. coli incident created an international chain reaction: Confusion early on in the investigation of the source of the outbreak led to erroneous warnings about Spanish cucumbers, tomatoe, and leafy greens as the source of infection. [8] As a result, Russia suspended food imports from all member countries of the European Union. [9]
However, upon further investigation, public health officials from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) now believe the source of infection to be sprouted seeds (a category of germinated seeds that includes fenugreek, lentil and bean sprouts) imported from Egypt and purchased by a German company. [10] The infected seeds were then sold to Britain, which in turn sold them in France, where reports of infections from the same strain of E. coli as that found in Germany surfaced a month ago. [11] The outbreak even reached the United States, with six confirmed cases of Americans infected by the German strain. [12] According to the European Food Safety Authority, the Egyptian seeds -- more than 11 tons in total -- were shipped around the world, purchased by 54 companies in Germany and disseminated among at least a dozen other European countries. [13] Investigators are now working to locate the remaining shipments of Egyptian seeds to prevent further disease outbreaks.
This incident highlights the fact that agriculture in the 21st century involves industrial-sized farms and corporations harvesting their products from all corners of the earth, and selling them across the globe, crossing national borders. This makes the issue of food safety much more complex. The good news is that many serious foodborne illness outbreaks are preventable; an efficient and effective food safety agency that monitors farms and factories, maintains an effective epidemiological and emergency response team, and provides up-to-date, accurate information to the public in the face of an outbreak can go a long way in reducing the spread of disease and its related costs. Unfortunately, this type of agency is the exception rather than the rule, including in America.
Until recently, the food safety mission of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was focused on response rather than prevention. The FDA had little authority to inspect food production at all levels of the supply chain, issue guidelines for proper cultivation of produce (thus reducing outbreaks at their source) or verify that food imports came from reliable growers. The agency could only suggest that infected foods be recalled -- it had no powers to require companies to remove their products, even if they were found to carry diseases. [14] And for three years now the FDA has been requesting additional funds to increase inspections of foreign foods, claiming that the agency does not have the resources to meet the demand. [15]
Furthermore, the creation of a seamless system of food safety programs is impeded by the split functions between the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, eggs and poultry under the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), has had its own issues with implementation of food safety procedures. Approval of regulations for the inspection of six strains of E. coli found in beef -- known as the "Big Six" -- have stalled in the White House Office of Management and Budget, leaving some experts wondering whether the U.S. meat industry is vulnerable to E. coli outbreaks. Consequently, a number of ground beef businesses have begun testing for E. coli at their plants. This is possible because tests created and used by the USDA have recently become commercially available. Scientists are now working to develop a new kit that would test for the German E. coli strain as well. [16]
The FDA does not have procedures in place to test regularly for the Big Six strains of E. coli either, which can also be found in produce. [17] The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the USDA and the FDA often overlap in their duties. For instance, although the USDA's mission is confined to inspecting meat, poultry and some eggs, with the FDA regulating all other foods and drugs in the U.S., a simple frozen pepperoni pizza would fall under the jurisdiction of both agencies. As a result, almost 1,500 food establishments are inspected by both the USDA and the FDA. The overlap creates inefficiencies in the system and could delay responses in the case of a serious foodborne illness outbreak. [18]
Fortunately, steps forward in fixing life-threatening problems in food safety prevention and response in America were taken this year with the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in January of 2011. The legislation, the first serious reform for U.S. food safety since 1938, brings the FDA's food safety authorities into the 21st century [19], with new powers for the agency to require prevention-based checks across the food supply; standardize inspections for food producers; mandate food recalls in the case of an outbreak; and improve coordination among the FDA and other government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the CDC. [20]
The FSMA also addresses the international component of food safety: Under the FSMA, the FDA is given the authority to require importers to verify the quality standards of their suppliers, to refuse admission to imported food if the foreign facility refuses to allow an FDA inspection and to require certification that imported food is in compliance with food safety requirements. The legislation also mandates more frequent inspections of foreign food suppliers, with inspection quotas increasing each year after the FSMA is implemented. [21]
Additionally, the FSMA aims to harmonize some of the shared responsibilities between the FDA and the USDA. The legislation calls for increased coordination between the two agencies under the categories of food vulnerability assessments, private sector coordinating councils for agriculture and food defense, laboratory networks and data sharing, and decontamination and disposal standards. Although the legislation does not change the jurisdiction of either agency, it requires that the USDA and FDA, along with other agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), collaborate on a National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy. [22] The FSMA is a much-needed step forward in protecting Americans from foodborne illnesses and, hopefully, reducing the costs of outbreaks in terms of productivity loss and economic impact.
But now the FSMA faces a whole new hurdle: the movement in Washington to tighten the reins on federal spending. This year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to cut the 2012 FDA budget by $87 million dollars -- that's $87 million less than the FDA received last year, and $226 million short of what's needed to enact FSMA. [23] The House also proposed cuts to the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, poultry and eggs. [24] The proposed cuts mean that the FDA will struggle to keep up with its inspections as well as maintain a coordinated and speedy response system in the case of an outbreak. It also reduces the likelihood that the FDA will have the resources to establish the new FSMA system to inspect imported foods. That means that foreign suppliers may not have to meet the same food safety standards as do domestic farmers. [25]
The FDA is not the only agency involved with food safety to face budget reductions this year. The House of Representatives has also proposed cuts to the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, poultry and eggs. [26] In addition, all funds were cut for the national foodborne pathogen monitoring program overseen by the USDA, known as the Microbiological Data Program. This program is considered by many public health officials as one of the first lines of defense against foodborne illnesses in the United States, because it screens fruits and vegetables for common pathogens like salmonella and E. coli. [27] The Microbiological Data Program has regularly screened around 15,000 produce samples a year for the past ten years, as compared to the 1,000 samples spot-checked annually by the FDA. In the past two years alone, the program's screenings have led to 19 product recalls. [28]
The looming budget cuts have prompted a warning from the FDA. Recently, the agency released a special report entitled Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality. The document underscores that the current food safety infrastructure is simply unable to support the inspections required to keep contaminated foods from entering the U.S. market. This is in part due to the fact that imports of food and drugs to the United States have increased six-fold over the last ten years. Almost 80 percent of medication ingredients,75 percent of seafood, and 60 percent of fruits and vegetables consumed in the United States come from other countries. And though FSMA takes these statistics into account -- requiring the FDA to inspect at least 600 foreign food suppliers over the course of a year -- the report says implementing the task will be impossible without additional funding. [29]
The FDA report also emphasizes that food-borne illnesses result in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths annually in the United States alone. [30] A recent nationwide outbreak of Salmonella sickness (resulting in the recall of 36 million pounds of ground turkey produced in an Arkansas meat plant) underscores the seriousness of food poisoning as a public health threat in America.
Greater attention to reducing food-related infections would save lives and contribute to reducing health care costs as well. The report underscores that today's world of agricultural practices in a global food supply chain require a modern system of food safety inspection. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is a long-awaited step towards improving our country's food safety system. The recent E. coli outbreak in Europe, the high incidence of food-borne illnesses in the United States as illustrated by the latest Salmonella outbreak and the FDA's report highlight why adequate resources are urgently needed to fully implement the FSMA, and why food safety must be made a national priority in the United States and around the world.
For more information, visit foodsafety.gov.
Rear Admiral Susan Blumenthal, M.D. (ret.) is the Public Health Editor of the Huffington Post. She serves as Director of the Health and Medicine Program at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington, D.C., a Clinical Professor at Georgetown and Tufts University Schools of Medicine, and Chair of the Global Health Program at the Meridian International Center. She served for more than 20 years in health leadership positions in the Federal government in the Administrations of four U.S. Presidents, including as Assistant Surgeon General of the United States, the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Women's Health, as a White House Advisor on Health, and as Chief of the Behavioral Medicine and Basic Prevention Research Branch at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal has received numerous awards including honorary doctorates and has been decorated with the highest medals of the U.S. Public Health Service for her pioneering leadership and significant contributions to advancing health in the United States and worldwide and was the recipient of the 2009 Health Leader of the Year Award from the Commissioned Officers Association. Admiral Blumenthal has been named by the National Library of Medicine, The New York Times and the Medical Herald as one of the most influential women in medicine and as a Rock Star of Science by GQ by the Geoffrey Beene Foundation.
Alison Gocke, an undergraduate at Princeton University, serves as a Health Policy Intern at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington D.C.
[1] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1106920#t=article
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/outbreaknet/outbreaks.html
[3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-04/food-safety-funding-battle-looms-as-obama-prepares-to-sign-reform-bill.html
[4] http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-03-food-borne-illness_N.htm
[5] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[6] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[7] http://www.google.com/url?
[8] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/64d387da-912e-11e0-9668-00144feab49a.html#axzz1P6QnmIE4
[9] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2811%2960846-5/fulltext?rss=yes#
[10] http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/naming-names-in-eu-e-coli-outbreak-fair-game/
[11] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/world/europe/27ecoli.html?scp=2&sq=e.%20coli&st=cse
[12] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irpE8YEZQLrnnhmdwxTN-VWlZuqg?docId=41ebabe49fe243e1a4331b5ccd2ac0b0
[13] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/business/06seeds.html?_r=1&hpw
[14] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247559.htm
[15] http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080115/us-food-safety-the-import-alarm-keeps-sounding.htm
[16] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/food-companies-act-to-protect-consumers-from-e-coli-illness.html
[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05Benedict.html
[18] http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-213
[19] http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/food/safety/2010-12-03-foodsafetyQA03_ST_N.htm
[20] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247559.htm#records1
[21] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm237934.htm
[22] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/lb-111-2-57.html
[23] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[24] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[25] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/food-safety-advocates-decry-fda-cuts/2011/05/27/AGzY7yEH_story.html
[26] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[27] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/microbiological-data-program-e-coli-screening_n_890165.html
[28] http://www.latimes.com/health/ct-met-pathogen-program-20110704,0,2683563.story
[29] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/health/policy/21food.html?scp=2&sq=fda&st=cse
[30] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
In the last paragraph, Dr. Blumenthal writes, "Greater attention to reducing food-related infections would save lives and contribute to reducing health care costs as well. The report underscores that today's world of agricultural practices in a global food supply chain require a modern system of food safety inspection."
I contend that we can reduce food-related infections by moving from industrial food manufacturing where these pathogens thrive and spread, to a more diverse, small-scale, locally-focused agricultural system. Such systems are better for the environment, better for the soil, have the potential to produce better food, would create more jobs in real farming, has reduced incidents of food-borne pathogens, and affects fewer people when there is an issue.
Of course, there are no lobbyists in Washington for real agriculture.
Here's the article:
Food Safety In The 21st Century
Susan Blumenthal, M.D.Public Health Editor at HuffPost and Former U.S. Assistant Surgeon General
Written in Collaboration with Alison Gocke
It sounds like a story right out of science fiction: A microscopic killer that shuts down the food supply, cripples a nation's exports, and leaves scores of people dead and thousands more ill. Such an event would seem unthinkable in the modern world of advanced agriculture and medical practice. But it did unfortunately occur several months ago as a result of an outbreak in Germany caused by a deadly, rare strain of E. coli bacteria that sickened more than 4,000 people and killed more than 50.
The strain, whose genome was just recently sequenced by scientists at the University of Maryland, is particularly virulent, carrying a combination of both Shiga toxin (which causes severe gastrointestinal illness like bloody vomiting, diarrhea, and sometimes, kidney failure) and a unique ability to adhere to the intestinal wall. The bacteria -- part of the serotype 0104:H4 -- is thus one of the most rare, deadly E. coli lines in existence. [1]
Over the past five years, from the E. coli scare found in California spinach to the recent outbreak of salmonella in ground turkey, serious and sometimes fatal illnesses resulting from contaminated food have occurred more frequently than expected. Since 2006, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued 39 warnings of multi-state foodborne illness occurrences. [2]
It is estimated that 48 million people are infected by foodborne diseases in the United States each year [3], resulting in $152 billion in medical costs annually. [4] And these outbreaks show no sign of abating; the incidence of salmonella infections alone has increased 20 percent since 1997. [5] With 170 countries exporting food to the U.S., and more than 70,000 food safety violations on food that is imported into America reported from 1998 to 2004 alone, the E. coli outbreak in Germany -- with additional cases reported in France and the U.S. -- shines a spotlight on why the issue of food safety is an international concern. [6]
According to the World Bank, more than two-thirds of countries globally are net importers (i.e., imports exceed exports) of food. [7] The devastating European E. coli outbreak that began in Germany in May illustrates the interconnectedness of the global food supply. From the beginning, the E. coli incident created an international chain reaction: Confusion early on in the investigation of the source of the outbreak led to erroneous warnings about Spanish cucumbers, tomatoe, and leafy greens as the source of infection. [8] As a result, Russia suspended food imports from all member countries of the European Union. [9]
However, upon further investigation, public health officials from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) now believe the source of infection to be sprouted seeds (a category of germinated seeds that includes fenugreek, lentil and bean sprouts) imported from Egypt and purchased by a German company. [10] The infected seeds were then sold to Britain, which in turn sold them in France, where reports of infections from the same strain of E. coli as that found in Germany surfaced a month ago. [11] The outbreak even reached the United States, with six confirmed cases of Americans infected by the German strain. [12] According to the European Food Safety Authority, the Egyptian seeds -- more than 11 tons in total -- were shipped around the world, purchased by 54 companies in Germany and disseminated among at least a dozen other European countries. [13] Investigators are now working to locate the remaining shipments of Egyptian seeds to prevent further disease outbreaks.
This incident highlights the fact that agriculture in the 21st century involves industrial-sized farms and corporations harvesting their products from all corners of the earth, and selling them across the globe, crossing national borders. This makes the issue of food safety much more complex. The good news is that many serious foodborne illness outbreaks are preventable; an efficient and effective food safety agency that monitors farms and factories, maintains an effective epidemiological and emergency response team, and provides up-to-date, accurate information to the public in the face of an outbreak can go a long way in reducing the spread of disease and its related costs. Unfortunately, this type of agency is the exception rather than the rule, including in America.
Until recently, the food safety mission of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was focused on response rather than prevention. The FDA had little authority to inspect food production at all levels of the supply chain, issue guidelines for proper cultivation of produce (thus reducing outbreaks at their source) or verify that food imports came from reliable growers. The agency could only suggest that infected foods be recalled -- it had no powers to require companies to remove their products, even if they were found to carry diseases. [14] And for three years now the FDA has been requesting additional funds to increase inspections of foreign foods, claiming that the agency does not have the resources to meet the demand. [15]
Furthermore, the creation of a seamless system of food safety programs is impeded by the split functions between the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, eggs and poultry under the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), has had its own issues with implementation of food safety procedures. Approval of regulations for the inspection of six strains of E. coli found in beef -- known as the "Big Six" -- have stalled in the White House Office of Management and Budget, leaving some experts wondering whether the U.S. meat industry is vulnerable to E. coli outbreaks. Consequently, a number of ground beef businesses have begun testing for E. coli at their plants. This is possible because tests created and used by the USDA have recently become commercially available. Scientists are now working to develop a new kit that would test for the German E. coli strain as well. [16]
The FDA does not have procedures in place to test regularly for the Big Six strains of E. coli either, which can also be found in produce. [17] The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the USDA and the FDA often overlap in their duties. For instance, although the USDA's mission is confined to inspecting meat, poultry and some eggs, with the FDA regulating all other foods and drugs in the U.S., a simple frozen pepperoni pizza would fall under the jurisdiction of both agencies. As a result, almost 1,500 food establishments are inspected by both the USDA and the FDA. The overlap creates inefficiencies in the system and could delay responses in the case of a serious foodborne illness outbreak. [18]
Fortunately, steps forward in fixing life-threatening problems in food safety prevention and response in America were taken this year with the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in January of 2011. The legislation, the first serious reform for U.S. food safety since 1938, brings the FDA's food safety authorities into the 21st century [19], with new powers for the agency to require prevention-based checks across the food supply; standardize inspections for food producers; mandate food recalls in the case of an outbreak; and improve coordination among the FDA and other government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the CDC. [20]
The FSMA also addresses the international component of food safety: Under the FSMA, the FDA is given the authority to require importers to verify the quality standards of their suppliers, to refuse admission to imported food if the foreign facility refuses to allow an FDA inspection and to require certification that imported food is in compliance with food safety requirements. The legislation also mandates more frequent inspections of foreign food suppliers, with inspection quotas increasing each year after the FSMA is implemented. [21]
Additionally, the FSMA aims to harmonize some of the shared responsibilities between the FDA and the USDA. The legislation calls for increased coordination between the two agencies under the categories of food vulnerability assessments, private sector coordinating councils for agriculture and food defense, laboratory networks and data sharing, and decontamination and disposal standards. Although the legislation does not change the jurisdiction of either agency, it requires that the USDA and FDA, along with other agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), collaborate on a National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy. [22] The FSMA is a much-needed step forward in protecting Americans from foodborne illnesses and, hopefully, reducing the costs of outbreaks in terms of productivity loss and economic impact.
But now the FSMA faces a whole new hurdle: the movement in Washington to tighten the reins on federal spending. This year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to cut the 2012 FDA budget by $87 million dollars -- that's $87 million less than the FDA received last year, and $226 million short of what's needed to enact FSMA. [23] The House also proposed cuts to the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, poultry and eggs. [24] The proposed cuts mean that the FDA will struggle to keep up with its inspections as well as maintain a coordinated and speedy response system in the case of an outbreak. It also reduces the likelihood that the FDA will have the resources to establish the new FSMA system to inspect imported foods. That means that foreign suppliers may not have to meet the same food safety standards as do domestic farmers. [25]
The FDA is not the only agency involved with food safety to face budget reductions this year. The House of Representatives has also proposed cuts to the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, poultry and eggs. [26] In addition, all funds were cut for the national foodborne pathogen monitoring program overseen by the USDA, known as the Microbiological Data Program. This program is considered by many public health officials as one of the first lines of defense against foodborne illnesses in the United States, because it screens fruits and vegetables for common pathogens like salmonella and E. coli. [27] The Microbiological Data Program has regularly screened around 15,000 produce samples a year for the past ten years, as compared to the 1,000 samples spot-checked annually by the FDA. In the past two years alone, the program's screenings have led to 19 product recalls. [28]
The looming budget cuts have prompted a warning from the FDA. Recently, the agency released a special report entitled Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality. The document underscores that the current food safety infrastructure is simply unable to support the inspections required to keep contaminated foods from entering the U.S. market. This is in part due to the fact that imports of food and drugs to the United States have increased six-fold over the last ten years. Almost 80 percent of medication ingredients,75 percent of seafood, and 60 percent of fruits and vegetables consumed in the United States come from other countries. And though FSMA takes these statistics into account -- requiring the FDA to inspect at least 600 foreign food suppliers over the course of a year -- the report says implementing the task will be impossible without additional funding. [29]
The FDA report also emphasizes that food-borne illnesses result in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths annually in the United States alone. [30] A recent nationwide outbreak of Salmonella sickness (resulting in the recall of 36 million pounds of ground turkey produced in an Arkansas meat plant) underscores the seriousness of food poisoning as a public health threat in America.
Greater attention to reducing food-related infections would save lives and contribute to reducing health care costs as well. The report underscores that today's world of agricultural practices in a global food supply chain require a modern system of food safety inspection. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is a long-awaited step towards improving our country's food safety system. The recent E. coli outbreak in Europe, the high incidence of food-borne illnesses in the United States as illustrated by the latest Salmonella outbreak and the FDA's report highlight why adequate resources are urgently needed to fully implement the FSMA, and why food safety must be made a national priority in the United States and around the world.
For more information, visit foodsafety.gov.
Rear Admiral Susan Blumenthal, M.D. (ret.) is the Public Health Editor of the Huffington Post. She serves as Director of the Health and Medicine Program at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington, D.C., a Clinical Professor at Georgetown and Tufts University Schools of Medicine, and Chair of the Global Health Program at the Meridian International Center. She served for more than 20 years in health leadership positions in the Federal government in the Administrations of four U.S. Presidents, including as Assistant Surgeon General of the United States, the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Women's Health, as a White House Advisor on Health, and as Chief of the Behavioral Medicine and Basic Prevention Research Branch at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal has received numerous awards including honorary doctorates and has been decorated with the highest medals of the U.S. Public Health Service for her pioneering leadership and significant contributions to advancing health in the United States and worldwide and was the recipient of the 2009 Health Leader of the Year Award from the Commissioned Officers Association. Admiral Blumenthal has been named by the National Library of Medicine, The New York Times and the Medical Herald as one of the most influential women in medicine and as a Rock Star of Science by GQ by the Geoffrey Beene Foundation.
Alison Gocke, an undergraduate at Princeton University, serves as a Health Policy Intern at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington D.C.
[1] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1106920#t=article
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/outbreaknet/outbreaks.html
[3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-04/food-safety-funding-battle-looms-as-obama-prepares-to-sign-reform-bill.html
[4] http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-03-food-borne-illness_N.htm
[5] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[6] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[7] http://www.google.com/url?
[8] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/64d387da-912e-11e0-9668-00144feab49a.html#axzz1P6QnmIE4
[9] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2811%2960846-5/fulltext?rss=yes#
[10] http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/naming-names-in-eu-e-coli-outbreak-fair-game/
[11] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/world/europe/27ecoli.html?scp=2&sq=e.%20coli&st=cse
[12] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irpE8YEZQLrnnhmdwxTN-VWlZuqg?docId=41ebabe49fe243e1a4331b5ccd2ac0b0
[13] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/business/06seeds.html?_r=1&hpw
[14] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247559.htm
[15] http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080115/us-food-safety-the-import-alarm-keeps-sounding.htm
[16] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/food-companies-act-to-protect-consumers-from-e-coli-illness.html
[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05Benedict.html
[18] http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-213
[19] http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/food/safety/2010-12-03-foodsafetyQA03_ST_N.htm
[20] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247559.htm#records1
[21] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm237934.htm
[22] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/lb-111-2-57.html
[23] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[24] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[25] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/food-safety-advocates-decry-fda-cuts/2011/05/27/AGzY7yEH_story.html
[26] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[27] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/microbiological-data-program-e-coli-screening_n_890165.html
[28] http://www.latimes.com/health/ct-met-pathogen-program-20110704,0,2683563.story
[29] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/health/policy/21food.html?scp=2&sq=fda&st=cse
[30] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Saturday, July 9, 2011
It's Time To Shut Up And Do Something
Our garden is about two months behind last year, which was a horrible growing season. Yesterday I was able to hang the laundry outside for the first time this year -- that's about two months behind the norm. It's not just the Puget Sound. While in Nebraska, every time I commented on how beautiful it was (it really is) I was told how wet and cold it had been and generations of folks would say, "It's never this green this time of year".
There are tornadoes in Arizona, the Missouri River is experiencing record flooding, and the entire state of Texas has been declared a disaster area due to drought and wildfires. Oceans are rising. It seems pretty obvious that Ma Nature is not cooperating with human "business as usual".
People in Canada and Australia are concerned about what we need to do about it. It was only a few years ago that the majority of Americans believed that climate change was an important issue that needed to be addressed. Then two things happened: the economy took a dive and a democrat was elected President. This is important because climatologists still insist that we need to address the causes of climate change immediately, if it's not already too late. But a handful of people have decided to use the issue to further polarize political parties and now the number of climate change deniers is going up.
This is insane and I don't understand the reasoning.
Okay, so a few strange weather occurrences does not necessarily mean anything. I get that and if that's what we were talking about, that'd be one thing. But we aren't. We're talking about a growing body of evidence and a majority of scientists who agree that climate change is happening and we are responsible.
"We can't afford to do anything about it right now". The economy is in the toilet, sure, but who is going to be glad we focused on that when millions of people start getting displaced, we can't grow food, and drinking water is scarce? It's as if people don't understand we are talking about losing our basic necessities: food and shelter. We are talking about a world that can not longer sustain not just us, but the plants and animals that we rely on. I really want my 401k to take care of me when I retire, but if it's a choice between that or food, I'll find a way to make ends meet.
I read somewhere someone called climate change a hoax and suggested that it was some kind of liberal plot to make people spend money. First of all, if you want plots, turn to the advertising companies. Marketers have gotten us all to spend so much money on crap -- much of which is bad for us -- I can't understand where anyone has the energy to spend on a conspiracy theory around climate change. Second, these are the same people bitching about the economy. Guess what? Investing in new energy sources CREATES JOBS. We should be creating new jobs in solar, wind, and hydro manufacturing and installation and putting people back to work! Why is anybody against these new jobs?
If we really buckle down and try to deal with this problem the worst case scenario is this: the economy gets a shot in the arm with new jobs, we create cleaner energy, the air and water are cleaner, we all become a little more responsible, our children have better lives, and it was all for nothing -- either it really is too late and we can't change it, or it was all just a myth.
Here's the other worst case scenario: droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and rising sea levels displace the majority of the world's population over the next decades, our agriculture and natural resources are wiped out, and you, me, and our children become part of the sharpest population decline in human history.
Do we have our priorities straight?
Further reading:
http://www.thesomervillenews.com/archives/16495
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/08/lets-change-our-ways-before-its-too-late/
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf
There are tornadoes in Arizona, the Missouri River is experiencing record flooding, and the entire state of Texas has been declared a disaster area due to drought and wildfires. Oceans are rising. It seems pretty obvious that Ma Nature is not cooperating with human "business as usual".
People in Canada and Australia are concerned about what we need to do about it. It was only a few years ago that the majority of Americans believed that climate change was an important issue that needed to be addressed. Then two things happened: the economy took a dive and a democrat was elected President. This is important because climatologists still insist that we need to address the causes of climate change immediately, if it's not already too late. But a handful of people have decided to use the issue to further polarize political parties and now the number of climate change deniers is going up.
This is insane and I don't understand the reasoning.
Okay, so a few strange weather occurrences does not necessarily mean anything. I get that and if that's what we were talking about, that'd be one thing. But we aren't. We're talking about a growing body of evidence and a majority of scientists who agree that climate change is happening and we are responsible.
"We can't afford to do anything about it right now". The economy is in the toilet, sure, but who is going to be glad we focused on that when millions of people start getting displaced, we can't grow food, and drinking water is scarce? It's as if people don't understand we are talking about losing our basic necessities: food and shelter. We are talking about a world that can not longer sustain not just us, but the plants and animals that we rely on. I really want my 401k to take care of me when I retire, but if it's a choice between that or food, I'll find a way to make ends meet.
I read somewhere someone called climate change a hoax and suggested that it was some kind of liberal plot to make people spend money. First of all, if you want plots, turn to the advertising companies. Marketers have gotten us all to spend so much money on crap -- much of which is bad for us -- I can't understand where anyone has the energy to spend on a conspiracy theory around climate change. Second, these are the same people bitching about the economy. Guess what? Investing in new energy sources CREATES JOBS. We should be creating new jobs in solar, wind, and hydro manufacturing and installation and putting people back to work! Why is anybody against these new jobs?
If we really buckle down and try to deal with this problem the worst case scenario is this: the economy gets a shot in the arm with new jobs, we create cleaner energy, the air and water are cleaner, we all become a little more responsible, our children have better lives, and it was all for nothing -- either it really is too late and we can't change it, or it was all just a myth.
Here's the other worst case scenario: droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and rising sea levels displace the majority of the world's population over the next decades, our agriculture and natural resources are wiped out, and you, me, and our children become part of the sharpest population decline in human history.
Do we have our priorities straight?
Further reading:
http://www.thesomervillenews.com/archives/16495
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/08/lets-change-our-ways-before-its-too-late/
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Report Warns Of Mass Extinction From Current Rate Of Marine Distress
From HuffingtonPost.com:
Travis Donovan
First Posted: 06/20/11 05:19 PM ET Updated: 06/21/11 09:09 AM ET
If the current actions contributing to a multifaceted degradation of the world's oceans aren't curbed, a mass extinction unlike anything human history has ever seen is coming, an expert panel of scientists warns in an alarming new report.
The preliminary report from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) is the result of the first-ever interdisciplinary international workshop examining the combined impact of all of the stressors currently affecting the oceans, including pollution, warming, acidification, overfishing and hypoxia.
“The findings are shocking," Dr. Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director, said in a statement released by the group. "This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children's and generations beyond that."
The scientific panel concluded that degeneration in the oceans is happening much faster than has been predicted, and that the combination of factors currently distressing the marine environment is contributing to the precise conditions that have been associated with all major extinctions in the Earth's history.
According to the report, three major factors have been present in the handful of mass extinctions that have occurred in the past: an increase of both hypoxia (low oxygen) and anoxia (lack of oxygen that creates "dead zones") in the oceans, warming and acidification. The panel warns that the combination of these factors will inevitably cause a mass marine extinction if swift action isn't taken to improve conditions.
The report is the latest of several published in recent months examining the dire conditions of the oceans. A recent World Resources Institute report suggests that all coral reefs could be gone by 2050 if no action is taken to protect them, while a study published earlier this year in BioScience declares oysters as "functionally extinct", their populations decimated by over-harvesting and disease. Just last week scientists forecasted that this year's Gulf "dead zone" will be the largest in history due to increased runoff from the Mississippi River dragging in high levels of nitrates and phosphates from fertilizers.
A recent study in the journal Nature, meanwhile, suggests that not only will the next mass extinction be man-made, but that it could already be underway. Unless humans make significant changes to their behavior, that is.
The IPSO report calls for such changes, recommending actions in key areas: immediate reduction of CO2 emissions, coordinated efforts to restore marine ecosystems, and universal implementation of the precautionary principle so "activities proceed only if they are shown not to harm the ocean singly or in combination with other activities." The panel also calls for the UN to swiftly introduce an "effective governance of the High Seas."
"The challenges for the future of the ocean are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen," Dan Laffoley of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and co-author of the report said in a press release for the new report. "The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Travis Donovan
First Posted: 06/20/11 05:19 PM ET Updated: 06/21/11 09:09 AM ET
If the current actions contributing to a multifaceted degradation of the world's oceans aren't curbed, a mass extinction unlike anything human history has ever seen is coming, an expert panel of scientists warns in an alarming new report.
The preliminary report from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) is the result of the first-ever interdisciplinary international workshop examining the combined impact of all of the stressors currently affecting the oceans, including pollution, warming, acidification, overfishing and hypoxia.
“The findings are shocking," Dr. Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director, said in a statement released by the group. "This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children's and generations beyond that."
The scientific panel concluded that degeneration in the oceans is happening much faster than has been predicted, and that the combination of factors currently distressing the marine environment is contributing to the precise conditions that have been associated with all major extinctions in the Earth's history.
According to the report, three major factors have been present in the handful of mass extinctions that have occurred in the past: an increase of both hypoxia (low oxygen) and anoxia (lack of oxygen that creates "dead zones") in the oceans, warming and acidification. The panel warns that the combination of these factors will inevitably cause a mass marine extinction if swift action isn't taken to improve conditions.
The report is the latest of several published in recent months examining the dire conditions of the oceans. A recent World Resources Institute report suggests that all coral reefs could be gone by 2050 if no action is taken to protect them, while a study published earlier this year in BioScience declares oysters as "functionally extinct", their populations decimated by over-harvesting and disease. Just last week scientists forecasted that this year's Gulf "dead zone" will be the largest in history due to increased runoff from the Mississippi River dragging in high levels of nitrates and phosphates from fertilizers.
A recent study in the journal Nature, meanwhile, suggests that not only will the next mass extinction be man-made, but that it could already be underway. Unless humans make significant changes to their behavior, that is.
The IPSO report calls for such changes, recommending actions in key areas: immediate reduction of CO2 emissions, coordinated efforts to restore marine ecosystems, and universal implementation of the precautionary principle so "activities proceed only if they are shown not to harm the ocean singly or in combination with other activities." The panel also calls for the UN to swiftly introduce an "effective governance of the High Seas."
"The challenges for the future of the ocean are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen," Dan Laffoley of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and co-author of the report said in a press release for the new report. "The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Japanese Researcher Creates Artificial Meat From Human Feces
The fact that someone would even consider doing this just shows where our food system is headed.
POOP BURGER: Japanese Researcher Creates Artificial Meat From Human Feces
by Lori Zimmer, 06/15/11
Some hardcore carnivores have a hard time finding meat alternatives such as soy protein or tofu burgers to be palatable. But non-meat eaters may lose their appetite along with their carnivorous friends over this one – a meat alternative made from HUMAN EXCREMENT. Yep, you heard me correctly — Japanese scientist Mitsuyuki Ikeda has developed a “burger” made from soya, steak sauce essence, and protein extracted from human feces.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
POOP BURGER: Japanese Researcher Creates Artificial Meat From Human Feces
by Lori Zimmer, 06/15/11
Some hardcore carnivores have a hard time finding meat alternatives such as soy protein or tofu burgers to be palatable. But non-meat eaters may lose their appetite along with their carnivorous friends over this one – a meat alternative made from HUMAN EXCREMENT. Yep, you heard me correctly — Japanese scientist Mitsuyuki Ikeda has developed a “burger” made from soya, steak sauce essence, and protein extracted from human feces.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Wind and Solar Opponents Use Bureaucracy to Stall Projects
I can't say this surprises me in the least. Here's the whole story in a nut:
"The government issued only a few dozen permits to develop wind and solar energy projects on public land last year compared with more than 1,300 oil and gas permits issued on federal land..."
“...'opponents can use regulatory stalling and delay tactics' to 'financially cripple' projects..."
"While federal incentives such as production tax credits and investment tax credits have helped the wind and solar industries, current credits are set to expire in a few years."
The article doesn't name the "opponents" of wind and solar, but it seems a pretty safe bet big oil has a hand in it. Whoever the opponents are, this is further evidence that the government is subservient to big business. Since big business is only responsible for shareholder profits and not the health of people, the planet, or future generations, this is a very dangerous predicament in which we find ourselves.
June 1, 2011, 5:03 p.m. EDT
Permits, uncertainty obstruct wind, solar energy
By Eric Skalac of Medill News Service
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – The government issued only a few dozen permits to develop wind and solar energy projects on public land last year compared with more than 1,300 oil and gas permits issued on federal land, a shockingly low number that needs to be fixed fast, members of a House committee said Wednesday
The culprit, according to many of the wind and solar industry officials testifying at the Natural Resources Committee hearing, is a bureaucratic process that can be used by project opponents to stall plans until they become economically unfeasible.
“I’m shocked at the constant problem of permitting and uncertainty,” said Rep. Jeff Landry, Republican of Louisiana.
James Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates, LLC, detailed the permitting process during his experience with what could become the nation’s first offshore wind generation project, which has been in development for the last 11 years.
With no legal requirement for the duration of a permit review period, “opponents can use regulatory stalling and delay tactics” to “financially cripple” projects that may meet the necessary standards, he said. “One small group can tie you up in knots for many years,” Gordon said, referring to a special interest group that he said “has sought to delay the [permit] review process at every turn.”
The Natural Resources Committee has been trying to identify roadblocks to wind and solar energy projects. At its first hearing on May 13, the committee asked the directors of the Bureau for Land Management and the Bureau for Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement to explain the alleged permitting delays. The officials said they were working to eliminate redundant steps.
The wind energy industry alone employs about 75,000 people in the U.S., and the generating capacity has grown annually by 35% over the past five years, “second only to natural gas and more than nuclear and coal combined,” said American Wind Energy Association spokesman Roby Roberts in a prepared statement. But despite industry growth, the witnesses agreed that the major roadblocks of policy uncertainty and a lengthy permitting process remain.
While federal incentives such as production tax credits and investment tax credits have helped the wind and solar industries, current credits are set to expire in a few years.
In addition, a grant program in the 2009 stimulus law provided $7 billion to be awarded to 2,601 renewable energy projects so far, “leveraging approximately $22 billion in private sector investment,” according to Stanford University energy expert Dan Reicher. But if projects have not started construction by the end of this year, they will lose the money.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
I am reminded of our own Declaration:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Something needs to change.
"The government issued only a few dozen permits to develop wind and solar energy projects on public land last year compared with more than 1,300 oil and gas permits issued on federal land..."
“...'opponents can use regulatory stalling and delay tactics' to 'financially cripple' projects..."
"While federal incentives such as production tax credits and investment tax credits have helped the wind and solar industries, current credits are set to expire in a few years."
The article doesn't name the "opponents" of wind and solar, but it seems a pretty safe bet big oil has a hand in it. Whoever the opponents are, this is further evidence that the government is subservient to big business. Since big business is only responsible for shareholder profits and not the health of people, the planet, or future generations, this is a very dangerous predicament in which we find ourselves.
June 1, 2011, 5:03 p.m. EDT
Permits, uncertainty obstruct wind, solar energy
By Eric Skalac of Medill News Service
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – The government issued only a few dozen permits to develop wind and solar energy projects on public land last year compared with more than 1,300 oil and gas permits issued on federal land, a shockingly low number that needs to be fixed fast, members of a House committee said Wednesday
The culprit, according to many of the wind and solar industry officials testifying at the Natural Resources Committee hearing, is a bureaucratic process that can be used by project opponents to stall plans until they become economically unfeasible.
“I’m shocked at the constant problem of permitting and uncertainty,” said Rep. Jeff Landry, Republican of Louisiana.
James Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates, LLC, detailed the permitting process during his experience with what could become the nation’s first offshore wind generation project, which has been in development for the last 11 years.
With no legal requirement for the duration of a permit review period, “opponents can use regulatory stalling and delay tactics” to “financially cripple” projects that may meet the necessary standards, he said. “One small group can tie you up in knots for many years,” Gordon said, referring to a special interest group that he said “has sought to delay the [permit] review process at every turn.”
The Natural Resources Committee has been trying to identify roadblocks to wind and solar energy projects. At its first hearing on May 13, the committee asked the directors of the Bureau for Land Management and the Bureau for Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement to explain the alleged permitting delays. The officials said they were working to eliminate redundant steps.
The wind energy industry alone employs about 75,000 people in the U.S., and the generating capacity has grown annually by 35% over the past five years, “second only to natural gas and more than nuclear and coal combined,” said American Wind Energy Association spokesman Roby Roberts in a prepared statement. But despite industry growth, the witnesses agreed that the major roadblocks of policy uncertainty and a lengthy permitting process remain.
While federal incentives such as production tax credits and investment tax credits have helped the wind and solar industries, current credits are set to expire in a few years.
In addition, a grant program in the 2009 stimulus law provided $7 billion to be awarded to 2,601 renewable energy projects so far, “leveraging approximately $22 billion in private sector investment,” according to Stanford University energy expert Dan Reicher. But if projects have not started construction by the end of this year, they will lose the money.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
I am reminded of our own Declaration:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Something needs to change.
Monday, May 30, 2011
New Research Shows Factory Farms are NOT the Way to Feed the World
I saw this article last week and haven't had a chance to share it until now. The article mentions the video here (which plainly says "unauthorized use or distribution prohibited", but I'm going to assume that, since it's up on You Tube, it's safe to embed alongside an article promoting it.)
Here's the article, by pollywog on My Auburn California:
Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty (Google this or go to Mercola doc com to watch the video. Just search for the title of this article)
Conventional opinion is that feeding the world by 2050 will necessitate a massive, global ramp-up of industrial-scale, corporate-led agriculture. But this is not always the opinion of scientists whose work takes them out of the laboratory and into farm fields and ecosystems, such as soil experts, ecologists, and development specialists.
One recently published scientific paper urges a fundamental rethinking of the U.S. agricultural-research system, which it calls "narrowly focused on productivity and efficiency" at the expense of public health and ecological resilience. It also calls for a revamping of the Farm Bill, which it argues uses subsidies to "mask market, social, and environmental factors associated with conventional production systems."
According to Grist:
"While conventional wisdom holds that scientists who study agriculture think only lots of GMOs and agrichemicals can feed us going forward, [this research] team has quite a different set of recommendations in mind: 'organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.' They are by no means the only high-level researchers to reach such conclusions."
Sources:
Grist May 11, 2011
Science May 6, 2011 (PDF)
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
From a purely financial perspective, factory farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) make loads of economic sense. Large numbers of animals, typically 1,000 or more, are raised in a small area, fed cheap, typically grain-based, genetically modified food, and supplemented with hormones and antibiotics to maximize their growth potential in the shortest amount of time possible.
"Indulgences" like access to pasture or natural foods, sunlight and fresh air are not a part of the equation as they don't positively impact profits.
As it stands, Time magazine reported that 2 percent of U.S. livestock facilities produce 40 percent of farm animals, and these CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses.
But thankfully a ray of hope has emerged.
New Policy Reform Paper Urges Transition to Sustainable Agriculture Systems
A very bright, forward-thinking paper from a group of researchers led by Washington State University soil scientist John P. Reganold, published in Science, has summed up problems with CAFOs and the need for transformative farming approaches that address long-term sustainability.
They say:
"Achieving sustainable agricultural systems will require transformative changes in markets, policy, and science."
To realize this change will involve a transition away from CAFOs and toward innovative farming practices that:
" … integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
The paper builds on a National Research Council report released last year – Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century – that reported in 2007 the largest 2 percent of U.S. farms were responsible for 59 percent of total farm sales.
What are the Consequences of Relying on CAFOs for Food?
The trend of large corporate-controlled CAFOs making up the lion's share of U.S. food production has lead to an abundance of cheap food, but not without consequence.
As the report noted:
"Many modern agricultural practices have unintended negative consequences, or externalized costs of production, that are mostly unaccounted for in agricultural productivity measurements or by farm enterprise budgets."
This includes:
Loss of water quality through nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in rivers, streams and ground water (which contributes to "dramatic shifts in aquatic ecosystems and hypoxic zones")
Agricultural pesticide contamination to streams, ground water and wells, and safety concerns to agricultural workers who use them
A decline in nutrient density of 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables), which suggests "possible tradeoffs between yield and nutrient content)
Large emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
Negative impact on soil quality through such factors as erosion, compaction, pesticide application and excessive fertilization
Industrial agriculture also raises concerns about the welfare of farm animals and the farmers themselves. Net farm income received by farmers has remained stagnant for the last four decades, and more than 50 percent of U.S. farmers must supplement their income with additional jobs during the off-season.
A large number of these farmers are slated to retire in the next decade, which means there may be a vast shortage of farmers in the United States, and corporate agriculture could continue to reign supreme.
This is a problem for another glaring reason as well – namely that this system directly contributes to Americans' increasing reliance on processed junk foods – the very same foods that are making us fat and riddled with chronic disease. This is in large part due to the fatally flawed Farm Bill, which is slated to be renewed in 2012.
What's the Farm Bill Got to do With It?
The Farm Bill is renewed every four years. The last version was revamped in 2008, and at that time it set aside $2.3 billion to subsidize small farmers' specialty crops, which sounds promising until you hear that $290 billion was given to big business in the form of corn, soybean and cotton subsidies.
By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the U.S. government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases.
In a nutshell, the American agricultural system promotes and produces junk food, which is the precise opposite of what we all need in order to be healthy.
Take HFCS, for example. It's actually quite difficult to find a processed food product that does NOT include HFCS, and oftentimes it's one of the top three ingredients. With everything we now know about how HFCS and other sugars create obesity and chronic disease, is it any wonder we have a health care crisis on our hands?
The breakdown of government farm subsidies is really quite eye-opening and clearly correlates with which foods are heavily consumed in the United States:
Meat/Dairy -- 73.8 percent
Grains -- 13.2 percent
Sugar/Oil/Starch/Alcohol -- 10.7 percent
Nuts/Legumes -- 1.9 percent
Vegetables/Fruits -- 0.4 percent
Notice that less than half a percent of food subsidies is for fruits and vegetables! This is precisely why families have trouble affording green peppers, leafy greens and tomatoes, but can get a fast-food cheeseburger for a buck.
The bad news is that the foods receiving the greatest subsidies are the very foods you should avoid or limit, according to federal nutrition guidelines. It's a perfect example of saying one thing but doing another, and then blaming the ill effects on human nature.
The Science report, which is calling for a reform of the Farm Bill, further notes:
"Most elements of the Farm Bill were not designed to promote sustainability. Subsidies are commonly criticized for distorting market incentives and making our food system overly dependent on a few grain crops mainly used for animal feed and highly processed food, with deleterious effects on the environment and human health."
A Better Way to Raise Our Food
The video above is the trailer from a full-length documentary called Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty. It offers an in-depth look into the escalating fight for food rights in the United States, including the right to purchase raw milk from small family farms.
The growing demand for raw milk is one sign that people are increasingly looking for fresh, whole foods that come from sustainable sources.
Partly in response to this consumer demand, researchers are now calling for both incremental and transformative approaches to make U.S. agriculture sustainable. This includes not only short-term goals like two-year crop rotations and reduced (or no) tillage but also a long-term transformative approach that:
" … builds on an understanding of agriculture as a complex socioecological system. Transformative change looks to whole-system redesign rather than single technological improvements. Examples of such innovative systems make up a modest, but growing, component of U.S. agriculture and include organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.
Such systems integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
This sounds very much like one emerging type of farming known as permaculture. The Permaculture Institute defines permaculture as an "ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor."
The word itself comes from "permanent agriculture" and "permanent culture," and at its foundation is developing agricultural and other systems that are interconnected and dependent on one another. In other words, they mimic the natural ecologies found in nature. The focus is not on any one element of the system, rather the focus is on the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat -- and how to use these relationships to create synergistic, self-supporting ecosystems.
How to Help Support Sustainable Agriculture
If you want to optimize your health, you simply must return to the basics of healthy food choices and typically this includes buying your food from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.
This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs.
Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket -- home to virtually every CAFO food made -- just can't compete.
If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Here's the article, by pollywog on My Auburn California:
Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty (Google this or go to Mercola doc com to watch the video. Just search for the title of this article)
Conventional opinion is that feeding the world by 2050 will necessitate a massive, global ramp-up of industrial-scale, corporate-led agriculture. But this is not always the opinion of scientists whose work takes them out of the laboratory and into farm fields and ecosystems, such as soil experts, ecologists, and development specialists.
One recently published scientific paper urges a fundamental rethinking of the U.S. agricultural-research system, which it calls "narrowly focused on productivity and efficiency" at the expense of public health and ecological resilience. It also calls for a revamping of the Farm Bill, which it argues uses subsidies to "mask market, social, and environmental factors associated with conventional production systems."
According to Grist:
"While conventional wisdom holds that scientists who study agriculture think only lots of GMOs and agrichemicals can feed us going forward, [this research] team has quite a different set of recommendations in mind: 'organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.' They are by no means the only high-level researchers to reach such conclusions."
Sources:
Grist May 11, 2011
Science May 6, 2011 (PDF)
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
From a purely financial perspective, factory farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) make loads of economic sense. Large numbers of animals, typically 1,000 or more, are raised in a small area, fed cheap, typically grain-based, genetically modified food, and supplemented with hormones and antibiotics to maximize their growth potential in the shortest amount of time possible.
"Indulgences" like access to pasture or natural foods, sunlight and fresh air are not a part of the equation as they don't positively impact profits.
As it stands, Time magazine reported that 2 percent of U.S. livestock facilities produce 40 percent of farm animals, and these CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses.
But thankfully a ray of hope has emerged.
New Policy Reform Paper Urges Transition to Sustainable Agriculture Systems
A very bright, forward-thinking paper from a group of researchers led by Washington State University soil scientist John P. Reganold, published in Science, has summed up problems with CAFOs and the need for transformative farming approaches that address long-term sustainability.
They say:
"Achieving sustainable agricultural systems will require transformative changes in markets, policy, and science."
To realize this change will involve a transition away from CAFOs and toward innovative farming practices that:
" … integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
The paper builds on a National Research Council report released last year – Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century – that reported in 2007 the largest 2 percent of U.S. farms were responsible for 59 percent of total farm sales.
What are the Consequences of Relying on CAFOs for Food?
The trend of large corporate-controlled CAFOs making up the lion's share of U.S. food production has lead to an abundance of cheap food, but not without consequence.
As the report noted:
"Many modern agricultural practices have unintended negative consequences, or externalized costs of production, that are mostly unaccounted for in agricultural productivity measurements or by farm enterprise budgets."
This includes:
Loss of water quality through nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in rivers, streams and ground water (which contributes to "dramatic shifts in aquatic ecosystems and hypoxic zones")
Agricultural pesticide contamination to streams, ground water and wells, and safety concerns to agricultural workers who use them
A decline in nutrient density of 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables), which suggests "possible tradeoffs between yield and nutrient content)
Large emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
Negative impact on soil quality through such factors as erosion, compaction, pesticide application and excessive fertilization
Industrial agriculture also raises concerns about the welfare of farm animals and the farmers themselves. Net farm income received by farmers has remained stagnant for the last four decades, and more than 50 percent of U.S. farmers must supplement their income with additional jobs during the off-season.
A large number of these farmers are slated to retire in the next decade, which means there may be a vast shortage of farmers in the United States, and corporate agriculture could continue to reign supreme.
This is a problem for another glaring reason as well – namely that this system directly contributes to Americans' increasing reliance on processed junk foods – the very same foods that are making us fat and riddled with chronic disease. This is in large part due to the fatally flawed Farm Bill, which is slated to be renewed in 2012.
What's the Farm Bill Got to do With It?
The Farm Bill is renewed every four years. The last version was revamped in 2008, and at that time it set aside $2.3 billion to subsidize small farmers' specialty crops, which sounds promising until you hear that $290 billion was given to big business in the form of corn, soybean and cotton subsidies.
By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the U.S. government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases.
In a nutshell, the American agricultural system promotes and produces junk food, which is the precise opposite of what we all need in order to be healthy.
Take HFCS, for example. It's actually quite difficult to find a processed food product that does NOT include HFCS, and oftentimes it's one of the top three ingredients. With everything we now know about how HFCS and other sugars create obesity and chronic disease, is it any wonder we have a health care crisis on our hands?
The breakdown of government farm subsidies is really quite eye-opening and clearly correlates with which foods are heavily consumed in the United States:
Meat/Dairy -- 73.8 percent
Grains -- 13.2 percent
Sugar/Oil/Starch/Alcohol -- 10.7 percent
Nuts/Legumes -- 1.9 percent
Vegetables/Fruits -- 0.4 percent
Notice that less than half a percent of food subsidies is for fruits and vegetables! This is precisely why families have trouble affording green peppers, leafy greens and tomatoes, but can get a fast-food cheeseburger for a buck.
The bad news is that the foods receiving the greatest subsidies are the very foods you should avoid or limit, according to federal nutrition guidelines. It's a perfect example of saying one thing but doing another, and then blaming the ill effects on human nature.
The Science report, which is calling for a reform of the Farm Bill, further notes:
"Most elements of the Farm Bill were not designed to promote sustainability. Subsidies are commonly criticized for distorting market incentives and making our food system overly dependent on a few grain crops mainly used for animal feed and highly processed food, with deleterious effects on the environment and human health."
A Better Way to Raise Our Food
The video above is the trailer from a full-length documentary called Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty. It offers an in-depth look into the escalating fight for food rights in the United States, including the right to purchase raw milk from small family farms.
The growing demand for raw milk is one sign that people are increasingly looking for fresh, whole foods that come from sustainable sources.
Partly in response to this consumer demand, researchers are now calling for both incremental and transformative approaches to make U.S. agriculture sustainable. This includes not only short-term goals like two-year crop rotations and reduced (or no) tillage but also a long-term transformative approach that:
" … builds on an understanding of agriculture as a complex socioecological system. Transformative change looks to whole-system redesign rather than single technological improvements. Examples of such innovative systems make up a modest, but growing, component of U.S. agriculture and include organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.
Such systems integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
This sounds very much like one emerging type of farming known as permaculture. The Permaculture Institute defines permaculture as an "ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor."
The word itself comes from "permanent agriculture" and "permanent culture," and at its foundation is developing agricultural and other systems that are interconnected and dependent on one another. In other words, they mimic the natural ecologies found in nature. The focus is not on any one element of the system, rather the focus is on the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat -- and how to use these relationships to create synergistic, self-supporting ecosystems.
How to Help Support Sustainable Agriculture
If you want to optimize your health, you simply must return to the basics of healthy food choices and typically this includes buying your food from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.
This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs.
Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket -- home to virtually every CAFO food made -- just can't compete.
If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Harbinger
Seriously? The U.S. Senate needed sixty votes to proceed with a bill to reduce the deficit by closing big oil tax loopholes and there were 48 Senators willing to vote against it?!? We are fighting two foreign wars, global climate change, an economic crisis, and we desperately need to curb the American appetite for petrol, but 48 U.S. Senators wanted to be sure big oil companies don't have to pay their fair share?!?
This is exactly what the founders meant when they spoke of "voting the rascals out". We should be paying more for gas because the cost is high. We should be paying more for food produced with petrochemicals and being transported long distances. We need to find a balance with nature and the planet so that it will continue to sustain us, but the U.S. Senate just decided big oil's profits are more important than you, me, and our children.
From Congress.org:
I read somewhere someone wrote this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We The People need to seriously reexamine our consent!
This is exactly what the founders meant when they spoke of "voting the rascals out". We should be paying more for gas because the cost is high. We should be paying more for food produced with petrochemicals and being transported long distances. We need to find a balance with nature and the planet so that it will continue to sustain us, but the U.S. Senate just decided big oil's profits are more important than you, me, and our children.
From Congress.org:
| Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. 940; A bill to reduce the Federal budget deficit by closing big oil tax loopholes, and for other purposes | ||
05/17/2011 Senate Roll Call No. 72 112nd Congress, 1st Session Rejected: 52-48 (see complete tally) | ||
| By 52 yeas to 48 nays (Vote No. 72), Senate did not agree to the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill. | ||
| Vote Map: Senate Roll Call No. 72 |
| 52 |
| ||
| 48 |
|
|  |
I read somewhere someone wrote this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We The People need to seriously reexamine our consent!
Monday, May 23, 2011
Two News Items
Two news items caught my eye today that I wanted to share.
First, this article from the BBC World News:
Australia Climate Commission says warming risk is real
The Australian Climate Commission has warned that the world's sea levels could rise by 1m by the end of the century, much more than thought.
In its first report, the commission says the evidence that the planet is warming is stronger than ever.
It said that climate science was being attacked in the media by people with no credentials in the field.
The Australian government has welcomed the report as it seeks public support for its proposed carbon tax.
The BBC's correspondent in Sydney, Nick Bryant, says the commission's report delivers a strong rebuke to those who question that human emissions are causing global warming.
It warned that the window to take action to limit global warming was closing fast.
[CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
Second, was this article in The Times of India:
Tasty, healthy, but pricey: Organic mangoes make a splash in Chennai
Karthikeyan Hemalatha, TNN | May 23, 2011, 01.04am IST
CHENNAI: TS Sujatha, a housewife from RA Puram, loves mangoes. She pays a premium for these fruits at ReStore -- an organic food store in Adyar. The mangoes cost twice as much but they promise to be pesticide-free and healthier. "For me the difference is in the taste. The moment I bite into an organic mango, my mouth is filled with the taste and the flavour," says Sujatha.
Sujatha is among a growing group of consumers who prefer organic produce including mangoes. There are at least 20 shops in the city that sell organic produce exclusively. Other shops such as Pazhamuthir Nilayam in Anna Nagar have sections devoted to organic produce. Officials estimate that the organic mango market has grown from zero to 3% in the last few years. They say that the trend toward all organic food is only growing. "The awareness of healthy organic food among urban consumers was pretty low when the store was launched eight years back and is slowly picking up now," says Sandhya Srikhant from Eco-nut, an organic food store in Besant Nagar.
Sujatha, the shopper at ReStore, prefers organic mangoes not just for the taste and their promise of good health but also because her son's pediatrician has asked her not to buy mangoes from regular shops. The doctor has told her that these mangoes may have been artificially ripened and contain traces of toxic chemicals such as arsenic that will harm her son.
Eco-nut assures that they buy their organic mangoes directly from farms that have been certified organic by the Tamilnadu Organic Certification Department (TNOCD) -- a first-of-its kind government agency in India that is vested with the authority to issue the organic certificate. Some 20 other private agencies also certify organic farms. Certification is given after a rigorous process of record keeping, testing and inspection over three years.
[CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
First, this article from the BBC World News:
Australia Climate Commission says warming risk is real
The Australian Climate Commission has warned that the world's sea levels could rise by 1m by the end of the century, much more than thought.
In its first report, the commission says the evidence that the planet is warming is stronger than ever.
It said that climate science was being attacked in the media by people with no credentials in the field.
The Australian government has welcomed the report as it seeks public support for its proposed carbon tax.
The BBC's correspondent in Sydney, Nick Bryant, says the commission's report delivers a strong rebuke to those who question that human emissions are causing global warming.
It warned that the window to take action to limit global warming was closing fast.
[CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
Second, was this article in The Times of India:
Tasty, healthy, but pricey: Organic mangoes make a splash in Chennai
Karthikeyan Hemalatha, TNN | May 23, 2011, 01.04am IST
CHENNAI: TS Sujatha, a housewife from RA Puram, loves mangoes. She pays a premium for these fruits at ReStore -- an organic food store in Adyar. The mangoes cost twice as much but they promise to be pesticide-free and healthier. "For me the difference is in the taste. The moment I bite into an organic mango, my mouth is filled with the taste and the flavour," says Sujatha.
Sujatha is among a growing group of consumers who prefer organic produce including mangoes. There are at least 20 shops in the city that sell organic produce exclusively. Other shops such as Pazhamuthir Nilayam in Anna Nagar have sections devoted to organic produce. Officials estimate that the organic mango market has grown from zero to 3% in the last few years. They say that the trend toward all organic food is only growing. "The awareness of healthy organic food among urban consumers was pretty low when the store was launched eight years back and is slowly picking up now," says Sandhya Srikhant from Eco-nut, an organic food store in Besant Nagar.
Sujatha, the shopper at ReStore, prefers organic mangoes not just for the taste and their promise of good health but also because her son's pediatrician has asked her not to buy mangoes from regular shops. The doctor has told her that these mangoes may have been artificially ripened and contain traces of toxic chemicals such as arsenic that will harm her son.
Eco-nut assures that they buy their organic mangoes directly from farms that have been certified organic by the Tamilnadu Organic Certification Department (TNOCD) -- a first-of-its kind government agency in India that is vested with the authority to issue the organic certificate. Some 20 other private agencies also certify organic farms. Certification is given after a rigorous process of record keeping, testing and inspection over three years.
[CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)